A lesson from the LoI<\/p>\n
In scrutinizing the distinctive features of the Letter of
\nIntent (LoI) recently concluded between the government of
\nIndonesia and the IMF, particularly as far as its being a legal
\ninstrument is concerned, the following characteristics should be
\nnoted by a student of law.<\/p>\n
First, regarding the signatory parties, they are not only the
\nIndonesian government and the IMF, but Bank Indonesia (BI) also
\nconstitutes a party in itself. However, although the signatory
\nparties are evident as comprising the government and BI on the
\none side and IMF on the other, thus signifying a bilateral
\nrelationship between them, nevertheless this image of the
\nbilateral nature of the undertaking has been impaired.<\/p>\n
Suddenly we face phrases in paragraph 4 of the LoI referring
\nto the use of the personal pronoun \"we\". For instance, phrases
\nlike \"we have sought the views of an independent panel of
\nexperts\" and \"we are developing a set of amendments to the
\ncentral bank law\" are cases in point. Obviously, the reference to
\nthe personal pronoun \"we\" belies the bilateral nature of the
\nmemorandum, a term representing the LoI as stated in paragraph 1.<\/p>\n
So, instead of supposedly reflecting the bilateral nature of
\ncommitments being exchanged between the government and BI on one
\nside and IMF on the other, the use of personal pronoun \"we\"
\nsuggests a unilateral pledge being made by the Indonesian
\nsignatory parties, the government and BI, vis-a-vis the IMF. This
\nis an interesting point to note.<\/p>\n
Another interesting feature is the reference to the House of
\nRepresentatives, as stated in some paragraphs of the LoI to be
\nmade subject to the qualification of \"consultation with the
\nHouse\".<\/p>\n
It must be clear that as far as the IMF is concerned, such
\nconsultative status being accorded to the House will have neither
\nlegal effect nor impairment to the binding nature of the LoI as
\nsuch. The consultative status of the House being specifically
\nasserted in the LoI is meant to meet domestic political purposes
\nat best.<\/p>\n
However, the House in some instances can also exercise the
\nrole of approving the measures or modalities adopted by the
\ngovernment as exemplified by the provisions of paragraph 5 and 11
\nof the LoI. In this regard, the law says that the role of the
\nHouse in such an instance shares the constitutive capacity in the
\ncreation of international agreements.<\/p>\n
Now the purpose of this letter is to draw a lesson from an
\ninternational agreement, in this case the LoI. The electorate in
\nthe general elections of 2004 must be aware that Indonesia needs
\ngood legislators, as the House is accorded both consultative
\nstatus and constitutive (legal) capacity with respect to the
\ngovernment's undertakings with international organizations, as
\ndemonstrated by the LoI with the IMF.<\/p>\n
S. SUHAEDI<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/a-lesson-from-the-loi-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }